"Ultimately I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary event by overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected congress," Obama told reporters today while speaking with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon. "I'm confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld." Obama concluded.

A few thoughts:

(1) That last quote will go down in the annals of presidential tautological tautologies. The law "will be upheld because it should be upheld." Such insight!

(2) Yes, the US Supreme Court is -- and always has been -- an "unelected" body. And? Are you hinting, Mr. President, that the American people ought not respect the final decisions of the High Court, or that the institution no longer serves as the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality? Such a departure would, indeed, be "unprecedented" -- the true definition of which appears to elude our Harvard Law graduate president. Also, since when does this president object to panels of unelected, unaccountable federal appointees making decisions about people's lives, with no possibility for further appeal? Suddenly, it's no longer a feature.

(3) In all seriousness, in what conceivable way would SCOTUS striking down a law it determined to be unconstitutional constitute an "unprecedented" act? Supreme Court majorities have been doing exactly that since establishing the practice of judicial review in 1803's landmark Marbury v. Madison decision. Heritage's Lachlan Markay reports that the Court has struck down 53 federal laws in the last 30 years alone. Unprecedented!

(4) Actually, a "strong majority" did not pass Obamacare. You'll recall that the 24 hours directly preceding Obamacare's passage was fraught with desperate vote whipping and deal-making. It was eventually dragged across the finish line in the House by a razor-thin margin, with dozens of Democrats joining a united Republican front opposing the law. Besides, the size of a congressional majority has no bearing on a law's root constitutionality -- a point one might assume a former law school lecturer would grasp.

(5) As for the president's "confident" (is he ever anything but?) prediction that the American people won't stand for such an exercise of "judicial activism," perhaps the president should re-examine, you know, virtually every single piece of polling data on the matter. In fact, the American people are demanding that the court rein in the Reid/Pelosi Congress' worst piece of legislative excess. Note the views of Democrats:

I'll leave you with this reminder of how liberals greet closely-divided, highly-charged Supreme Court decisions with which they concur:

"It is a decision of the Supreme Court. If Congress wants to change it, it will require legislation of a level of a constitutional amendment. So this is almost as if God has spoken. It's an elementary discussion now. They have made the decision."

Finally, the critical reminder that we genuinely do not know how the Court will rule on this case. Anyone who tells you otherwise isn't shooting straight.